This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/keep_track by /u/rusticgorilla on 2024-01-02 18:54:03.
If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).
Colorado
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that Donald Trump is disqualified from appearing on the state’s ballot for his participation in an “insurrection.” The court—made up entirely of Democratic appointees—split 4-3 on the issue, with the dissenters focusing on whether Colorado law allows the state to resolve the issue in the first place.
A group of Colorado voters brought the lawsuit, arguing that Trump is ineligible to hold the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
- The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment reads: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 3, enacted after the Civil War to prohibit Confederates and their sympathizers from serving again in public office, does not define an “insurrection or rebellion” and does not provide a legal minimum for proving such an action. Further, the presidency is not explicitly mentioned as an office covered by the clause.
Four of Colorado’s Supreme Court justices explain in a lengthy 133-page analysis that the “most obvious and sensible reading of Section Three” holds that the president is an “officer of the United States” and thus covered by Section 3. “[T]he events of January 6,” the majority continued, “constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country…Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection.”
Finally, the court considered whether Trump “engaged in” the insurrection, as required by Section 3:
We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection. President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power…
Moreover, the record amply demonstrates that President Trump fully intended to—and did—aid or further the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power in this country. He exhorted them to fight to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election. He personally took action to try to stop the certification. And for many hours, he and his supporters succeeded in halting that process.
The three dissenters, on the other hand, based their decisions on procedural and legal deficiencies of the state’s process for disqualifying a candidate.
Chief Justice Boatright wrote that the “action to disqualify former President Donald J. Trump under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment presents uniquely complex questions that exceed the adjudicative competence” of Colorado’s election code, which requires an expedited five-day trial to determine qualification:
Section 1-1-113 provides for the resolution of potential election code violations in a timely manner…Although a claim that a candidate is not thirty-five years old may be easier to resolve than a claim that a candidate is not a natural born citizen, these presidential qualifications are characteristically objective, discernible facts. Age, time previously served as president, and place of birth all parallel core qualification issues under Colorado’s election code. Conversely, all these questions pale in comparison to the complexity of an action to disqualify a candidate for engaging in insurrection…Unlike qualifications such as age and place of birth, an application of Section Three requires courts to define complex terms, determine legislative intent from over 150 years ago, and make factual findings foreign to our election code…
Dismissal is particularly appropriate here because the Electors brought their challenge without a determination from a proceeding (e.g., a prosecution for an insurrection-related offense) with more rigorous procedures to ensure adequate due process. Instead, the Electors relied on section 1-1-113 and its “breakneck pace” to declare President Trump a disqualified insurrectionist.
Justice Carlos Samour’s dissent explains that his objections rest with the idea that Colorado can enforce Section 3 without a prior adjudicative proceeding from either the federal courts (like a conviction) or Congress (legislation).
My colleagues in the majority turn Section Three on its head and hold that it licenses states to supersede the federal government. Respectfully, they have it backwards. Because no federal legislation currently exists to power Section Three and propel it into action, because President Trump has not been charged under section 2383, and because there is absolutely no authority permitting Colorado state courts to use Colorado’s Election Code as an engine to provide the necessary thrust to effectuate Section Three, I respectfully dissent.
As expected, the Colorado Republican Party petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case last week. The Colorado ruling will thus remain on hold for the foreseeable future, potentially resulting in Trump remaining on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5 (pending further action by the Supreme Court).
Maine
Unlike in Colorado, Maine voters can directly challenge a candidate’s qualification before the Secretary of State, who is empowered by state law to keep unqualified candidates off the primary election ballot.
A group of voters brought these challenges before Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) seeking to have Donald Trump barred from the state’s primary ballot for violating Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bellows concluded that Trump’s primary petition is invalid because he engaged in insurrection, thus making him unqualified to hold the office of the President:
I conclude… that the record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power. I likewise conclude that Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it…
I do not reach this conclusion lightly. Democracy is sacred… I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws, when presented with a Section 336 challenge, is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek.
The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic. They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act …
Content cut off. Read original on https://old.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/18wvi8m/colorado_and_maine_bar_trump_from_2024_ballot_11/